R v Paul

[2014] NSWSC 1971

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Paul [2014] NSWSC 1971
Hearing dates:	28 May 2014
Date of orders:	28 May 2014
Decision date:	28 May 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Bail granted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – bail – application for bail – bail granted with conditions
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Aaron Paul (Applicant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr D Curran (Crown) Ms BJ Rigg (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2014/68147
Publication restriction:	None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: The applicant seeks bail under the provisions of the newly operating Bail Act 2013 (NSW) having been charged with a number of serious offences under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) of contravening a prohibition/restricted AVO. Under the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception of which there are numerous charges and under the Bail Act of failing to appear.

2. The applicant has been in custody since 3 February. His application was adjourned on 2 April to enable him to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment. Before the Court today is correspondence from the Australian Council of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence which indicates that the applicant has been accepted for admission into the Canton Beach Family Recovery Centre at Canton Beach.

3. He is, however, due to appear before Sutherland Local Court on 16 June for sentence having entered pleas in relation to all of the charges.

4. The Crown opposes bail in circumstances where it submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk having regard to the relevant matters specified in s 17(3) which cannot be sufficiently mitigated by bail conditions. That if released from custody he will not appear or commit a serious offence or endanger the safety of victims individually and the community.

5. On the applicant’s case, even if such unacceptable risks can be found, that can be sufficiently mitigated by the conditions of bail proposed by way of participation in the program into which he has been accepted albeit potentially only for a relatively short period of time given the impending sentencing hearing.

6. The application has to be considered in the context of the purpose of the Bail Act specified in s 3 to be, firstly, to provide a legislative framework for a decision as to whether a person who is accused of an offence or is otherwise required to appear before the Court should be released with or without condition. Secondly, to require the Court to have regard to the presumption of innocence and the general right to be at liberty. There is no question that the offences with which the applicant has been charged are serious ones and I am well satisfied, that the Crown case, that the applicant poses the unacceptable risk it has identified are well made.

7. Having regard to the relevant criteria specified under s 17(3), not only do the applicant’s offences concern identity theft and substantial sums of money, he has while a relatively minor criminal record, an extensive history of breaches and failing to appear with warrants issued.

8. The question to be resolved in the face of that conclusion is whether the bail conditions proposed sufficiently mitigate the risks which have been found. That question has to be resolved by way of an assessment process which has to be undertaken on the balance of probabilities having regard to the evidence or information considered to be credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.

9. In this case having in mind all of the matters which I have mentioned as well as the applicant’s age and background and personal circumstances and his obvious need to pursue the program into which he has been accepted and the basis on which that program operates, I am satisfied that the risks which the applicant poses can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions which I propose to impose upon him.

10. In reaching that conclusion, the question is raised by the Crown as to whether such bail conditions might have an impact on the sentencing exercise to be conducted by the Local Court on 16 June, I have expressed my opinion that given the nature of the provisions of the current legislative scheme and its concern with risk assessment and risk mitigation, which I have discussed, I cannot see how conclusions reached in relation to those statutory concerns can have any impact on the sentencing exercise which will have to be undertaken on 16 June. The sentence will have to be determined on the basis of the relevant evidence led in those proceedings.

11. For all of those reasons, I propose to grant bail.

**********

Decision last updated: 05 October 2016